Suggestions/15th-Apr-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

Ransack Change (Changed)

Timestamp: Canuhearmenow Hunt! 01:55, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Type: Skill change.
Scope: nerfs Ransack Bots.
Description: This would make a slight change to Ransack. What this changes is this; Survivors can now fix a building that is ransacked even when zombies are in it but only if the survivor to zombie ratio is 3:1, so if there are 2 zombies in a building, then it takes 6 survivors in the building to be able to fix it. This is mean't as a way to combat bots used to keep NT's and other resource buildings ransacked, yet it isen't a true nerf in the sense that it is hard to coordinate survivors to go to the building at the right time, and stay in the building for any period of time.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 01:55, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Lovely - Sounds fine to me. It's easy to create zombies and slap them in random buildings, but it's much more difficult to slap survivors in ransacked buildings for long enough. This would work well for resource raids in devastated suburbs, which is fitting for a zombie apocalypse.--Lachryma☭ 01:59, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  3. YESYESYESYES - That NT ransack group won't be able to realistically complete their goal with this. Which is one thing I don't want to happen. Tryce of Thunder 03:00, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Keep - Sounds logical to me, I think this has been needed for a while. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:06, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Keep - Let's all remember that holding a NT was hard enough pre-ransack, but now that there's a group dedicated to ransacking them...--Labine50 MH|ME|TNT'07 07:38, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Keep - yes, all that placing alt-bots to keep areas ransacked are annoying --Duke Garland 12:26, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  7. It's OK, but this is a Semi-Keep from me... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:41, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  8. keep as swiers. --Ev933n / Talk PPGC21:08, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Keep - I like the idea Divs 03:22, 21 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill A group of 12 survivors could visit 3-4 different NT buildings in one day and clean up them all (assuming each has less than 4 zombies) - that seems cheap, as they could then be re-barricaded and the zombies killed at leisure. Those 12 survivors could even be zergs, as there is no "dice roll" to try and clean up a building for zerg flags to affect. I'd maybe vote keep on a version where there was a CHANCE to clean up a building when survivors outnumber zombies (chance based on the ratio) but not on this version. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 03:37, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill - Quit being lazy and kill the zombies already, if its a 3 to 1 ratio then someone has to have ammo. --EL Zillcho 03:52, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill - Ransacking is playing it's part in equalising the playing field. Let it be -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:11, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Kill - If you outnumber the zombies, you should be able to clear the ransack. Sure it's a little more work than just... ignoring them... but I think it's more worthwhile that way. There's a sense of accomplishment that comes from kicking that last zed out and fixing up a building. Don't be lazy. Zombies love the great outdoors. Help them get there. --Uncle Bill 06:52, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Kill - Explain to me how this doesn't encourage zerging on the survivor's part.--Bluish wolf 07:04, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill - I know there's a problem with bot/zerg use to hold buildings. I've been through suburbs where every single building, ransacked, has a single zombie standing in it, and I simply don't believe that all those players have chosen to leave their key zombie character standing in an empty building. Some of 'em have to be bot/zergs. However, if you change the rules so numbers matter, then what's to stop this turning into a zerg arms race. Now, instead of me seeing 1 zed holding a ransacked building, there'll be ten. This would encourage zerging on both sides. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:17, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  7. Kill - Are you kidding me?! --User:Axe27/Sig 18:12, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Kill -As Funt. For once. -Nibiletz 21:06, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Kill - Also as Funt. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob T 21:10, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  10. Kill - Screwing up game balance is not a valid mean of countering zergers. --Black Mask 22:42, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Kill If you want that building so much, put out a radio signal, go hunting for people, put together some plan and get a bunch of you in to do the job. The Zombies have gone to all that trouble trashing the place, at least have the decency to kill em off before you move back in. Seventythree
  12. Countering zerging with zerging just exasperates the problem.--Pesatyel 05:21, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  13. Pretty much as above. If you're already outnumbering them, you should be able to kill them easily with anything other than a fist or "flavor" weapons. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 06:53, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Do you know how stupid this is? Trenchcoater: My buddies now outnumber the zombies, so now I can ignore them, pick up a broom, clean up this mess, then go and barricade the building up to EHB and then start searching for goodies while these zombies start waking up and eating us all up! Horray! ...Er, no. Out of gerne, and too silly.--ShadowScope 03:34, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Spam - Don't call me a overpowered suggestion, Shadowscope! It's hurtful. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 11:56, 15 April 2007 (BST)

Money

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 04:59, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Money has never worked as a concept because there's nobody to buy anything from. And Trading hasn't worked because of potential zerging. But maybe the two concepts together could work. I suggest adding money to the game. It'd be findable at a very low rate to prevent inflation, maybe a 1% chance in banks. People would be able to trade money for items with other people. It'd prevent zerging because you couldn't just give items to your alt, a zerg would have needed to spend AP in the past finding money or finding valuable items to sell. It'd give money the value of being the required element in order to receive items from others. And no, you can't just give money to people. You can only get money from another person if you sell something valuable. Newspapers for instance would not be sellable.

Each item would have a preset cost, depending on its rarity. You'd select what you want from a drop-down menu, say a first-aid kit, and then others in the room would see:

Bill is requesting a first-aid kit (Sell $10)

If Bill is still there clicking on that button would take one first-aid kit from your inventory and move 10 dollars from Bill's inventory to yours. Something rarer, like a syringe, might instead cost $25. Since money would be hard to come by it wouldn't be a means of getting "free items". Instead it would be sort of the wild card item in your inventory, the stored effort of your spent AP that could be exchanged to become anything in the future.

I think every 5 dollars should take up 1% of inventory, making $500 the absolute maximum, so a player can't stockpile $100,000 and then purchase dozens of shotgun shells every day for weeks to come. Alternatively since $500 is an unrealistically low sum money could be made more common and take less inventory space and the cost of everything could be raised. For instance 5% rate of finding money, 1% encumbrance per 25 dollars, and 50 dollar first-aid kits. It'd obviously take some thought to find the right price for each item. Additionally, if money becomes overly plentiful and inflation should occur (and it might since money would keep being found) the price for items could be tweaked upward and the encumbrance of money could be tweaked downwards every few months, or once a year, as need be.

This should add a new layer of coordination and strategy to gameplay. It wouldn't just be search search search use use use. Some players could become merchants and have a vast personal wealth or set up arrangements for item exchange: "We'll get first-aid kits if you pick up ammunition!" It may have required a bit of explanation but it'd be quite simple to use. Just request an item, someone clicks, and if you have the money and they have the item a trade is made. And I know "money has no inherent value". Well, it doesn't now and we still seem to value it. I think Malton still has an intact enough population to allow a monetary system. Native Americans in small villages and Pacific Islanders worked to make money, such as wampum or cowrie shells. Money is useful to any society, even one that spends most of its time indoors terrified of the ravenous undead.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep I think this would be a vast improvement on the game, an evolution to a more involved state. Since it doesn't really help survivors as a whole, just individual survivors, I don't think it would overpower humans. Heck, the survivor population would be diverting AP they could spend on ammunition to find money just to be able to trade with each other. Fewer useful items would be found in total, but being able to buy whatever random thing you wanted would be useful. --Jon Pyre 05:12, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Keep - Cap says yes. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 11:58, 15 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - If money remains findable, it will lead to a situation where money is going to be too common, as it is never destroyed, or used up (just passed on to someone in exchange for items), but more money flows in from searches. Everyone is going to be asking for items to buy, but no-one is going to want to sell, because they've already got enough money -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 05:25, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re I already address that in the suggestion. As money becomes more plentiful it would be simple for Kevan to just raise the costs of items correspondingly. Heck, he could probably set up an automatic system to raise/lowers prices whenever X amount of money is added/taken from Malton. There's no reason why inflation couldn't exist. And remember...money can't be collected infinitely. It takes up inventory space. So you don't need to worry about money piling forever like XP does. Even a player that's been here for years won't have more money than they're willing to devote encumbrance for. Newbies *would* be able to catch up. --Jon Pyre 05:41, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. A better idea to fix the problem of boxy, limit the amount of money that can be searched. People can find "safes" in Banks, like how people find crates outside in the past, and then they loot the safe for money until the safe runs out and 'disappers'. Then no more money. If Kevan wants to boost suriviors and trading, he'll allow for suriviors to find more safes in Banks, increasing the money supply. If Kevan wants to stop inflation, there will be no more Safes. Give Kevan control over how much money in the economy, and I think it might make people happy.--ShadowScope 07:18, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re I don't think money should run out for the same reason it'd be a bad idea for axes or DNA Extractors to run out. If the population grows, or users quit with money in their inventory or discard money, the ability to increase the supply of money would be necessary. But an automatic system could be multifaceted. As money becomes more plentiful relative to the population costs could rise and search rates could fall (but never go to 0). As money decreases in supply costs could fall and search rates could be inched up again. But I think that would be mostly unnecessary. The supply of money would be limited by the amount of inventory space people can spare and still have enough room for their equipment and weapons, and the price of items can be set high enough that people can afford things when needed but not carry enough money to buy 20 loaded shotguns. --Jon Pyre 07:29, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill - As much as this bad suggestion seems to rely on Kevan actively monitoring and changing things over time as he sees fit, there's not much point suggesting it, or anything really - you could just as well rely on Kevan actively monitoring and changing things in the game over time as he sees fit. Oh, wait, that's already the case with this one. Of course, even if this were finished, it's no good, and it is quite zerg abusable. This vote remark is already way too long though, as are others and the REs. Why isn't this on the discussion page, anyway? --Mold 11:18, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re I pointed out how Kevan could automate inflation. He wouldn't need to do it manually. And even if he did that'd just changing a minor detail once a year. --Jon Pyre 15:53, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Kill - this wouldnt work, ever. its horribly zerg abusable. also, malton is in england and so would use use pounds, not dollars.--Ropponmatsu 11:37, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Kill - Not really needed, by the sounds of things you would just be better off to search for what you want rather then try and buy it because of the AP cost of getting money. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 11:41, 15 April 2007 (GMT)
    • Re At first you would. But the supply of money would build up and people would stop "making" it when there was enough in game. In a sense money is more like a vehicle. Hear me out on this one. It is means of transfering an item from person A to person B. Building a car or truck takes some effort and expense but it's worth it so that eventually people can transport items between each other as necessary. Money wouldn't just be symbolic, it'd be a needed tool in order to gain random items from your allies. --Jon Pyre 15:51, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Kill - Searching for ammo and killing zombies is a big enough waste of time (and generators) already. When people start searching in banks to BUY ammo to kill zombies, I'd have to give up all hope of seeing more intelligent game play from survivors. Like crosses, money should be worthless, except as a decoration. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 16:52, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re Once enough money was in game people wouldn't search for it anymore. That's why the search rate is so low, because after two months of people gathering cash Malton would have an adequate supply so players would just sell items for money rather than search anymore. Finding money would be inefficient at first but after a initial period of gathering searching would be mostly a non-strategy. --Jon Pyre 18:38, 15 April 2007 (BST)
      • Re Re You are assuming people will use this new ability intelligently- a pretty unlikely assumption, IMO. People already are pretty stupid about using guns, and its only a small extrapolation to expect this stupidity will extend to using money. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 19:56, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  7. kill The game already has the basis for an economy in artworks. These can be searched for and installed as payment in the game, gradually accumulating in a safehouse and providing visible evidence of a group's status (essentially a visible AP tribute). Inflation is minimised because zombies can ransack safehouses. Barter in rare aesthetic objects provides a far maore realistic basis for an apocalytic economy than money. - Fuster 22:34, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re That's completely different. The reason why money would have value isn't because people can collect it. It would have value because it would be the only way of switching items from one person to another. --Jon Pyre 01:19, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Kill No centralised authority means no money. - Black Mask 22:47, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    • Re Remember Malton is quarantined. The outside world still exists. Money is still in use there. Therefore any resident with a hope of escaping would want to have money. --Jon Pyre 01:21, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  9. Kill-There is categoricaly no way survivors would continue using money or accumilating money. In a situation like this the only trade would be bartering, and thats way too open to misuse. Money is not actualy an object. It is a shared illusion that we all have that a useless peice of paper or disk of metal is worth a loaf of bread. Something this catestrophic happens to peoples shared worldveiw and money is amongst the first thing to go. Seventythree
  10. Kill - As above, pretty much. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 06:50, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. spam - I don't want a trading infrastructure in this game. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:12, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Spam - no trading please. it's not an economic game --Duke Garland 12:28, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  3. I do believe this is a dupe of something in Rejected, I think. Give me a moment to find it... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:36, 15 April 2007 (BST) My bad...The previous money suggestion is in Reviewed, but is not a dupe, so this is spam cause I'm against trading, even if it is with money. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:38, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Spam Umm..WTF? As the others. -Nibiletz 21:08, 15 April 2007 (BST)

The Malton Tower

Timestamp: 11:33, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Type: new building
Scope: Mockridge Heights.
Description: What city is complete without a ridiculously large tower that has no other purpose than to separate tourists from their cash? Exactly.
  • The Malton Tower would be placed in Mockridge Heights, in place of the street at (46,66).
  • In order to ensure that the tower be surrounded by empty blocks, the bank at (47,67) would be moved 1 square east to (48.67), which is currently just a street.
  • The 8 blocks surrounding The Malton Tower would then consist of 6 streets, a carpark and a park. I propose changing one of the streets to a carpark, and another 2 to parks. That would make it 3 streets, 2 carparks and 3 parks surrounding the tower.
  • The Malton Tower is very tall indeed, so suicide is possible. Also, it's in Mockridge Heights, which is high ground. Further, it has some of those tourist-binocular things attached around the outside of the twirly cafe at the top of the tower.
  • Tourist-binocular things: these allow you to select a drop-down list for the 8 compass directions, as you do currently for binoculars, at a cost of 1AP What you see is based on this:
NW NW NW N N N NE NE NE
NW NW NW N N N NE NE NE
NW NW NW N N N NE NE NE
W W W E E E
W W W X E E E
W W W E E E
SW SW SW S S S SE SE SE
SW SW SW S S S SE SE SE
SW SW SW S S S SE SE SE
  • Note that you can't see the 8 squares directly surrounding the tower. That's because of the angle of the binoculars, and the viewing platform, and the height of the tower (and so on). Even if you have your own binoculars, you just get the same view as if you were using the built-in tourist-binocular plinth things (which are free, because someone with a crowbar smashed open the money boxes ages ago).
  • The binocular-plinths can't be ransacked. They always function. It can be 'caded as normal, and does have a door.
  • Items: Knife (from the kitchens: 2%), Book (from the tower tourist shop: 2%), Replica of the Tower (4%, enc. 20%, decorative item can be installed in other buildings), binoculars (ironically, available from the tourist shop: 2%).
  • If you spend a bit of time adjusting the focus, and scanning the city, you can focus in on any single square in Malton (except for the one you're in, the 8 surrounding squares, and the squares that you can see using the 1AP cost shown in the diagram above - suitable message would inform you when you've tried to do it incorrectly). For a cost of 3AP (1 to view, 1 to focus, 1 to concentrate) you get to see the outside population of any single square in Malton. However, for each survivor or zombie in that square, there is a 50% chance that you don't see them because they're obscured by a tall building or whatever. (The interface involves you typing in an X and Y co-ordinate, which uses the same system as the GPS units.) Using this system, if there were 50 zombies and 2 survivors in a given square, you'd (probably) see 25 zombies and 1 survivor, but you might see nothing.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - The Mock is often a ghost town. Not a NecroTech in the 'burb to bring you back. A single tower for the whole of Malton... yeah, why not. The view, as suggested here, isn't overpowering -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 11:43, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Author-Keep - Aye, Boxy spotted why I chose Mockridge Heights - it's a backwater 'burb with nothing much going for it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:51, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Keep - Won't shift massive many people to Mockridge, but it's still good. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 11:53, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  4. Keep - why not? --Duke Garland 12:29, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  5. Keep - Sounds interesting, so go on then...--Kaisuke 12:38, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  6. Keep - Hey, I'm up for it. It sounds like fun and adds more places to see around Malton. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 11:44, 15 April 2007 (GMT)
  7. Change - I don't want to send this back as I love the general premise, but I think it would be far better if the plinth's didn't work when ransacked. Otherwise, what is the point for zombies? --Karloth Vois REDRUM small.jpg RR 13:05, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    re - if it gets to PR, I'll add a note about that concern, although the point for zombies would be to deny the building to survivors full stop. Maybe the long range part could be impossible if there are zombies present - it makes sense that you wouldn't be spending time focussing a set of binocs if there's a ravening zed nearby. Like I say, if it gets through, I'll add a note. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:15, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  8. Keep - Seems good. I have problems with plinths, but seems good enough. Nice post. --Peterblue 14:10, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  9. I do say...what a nice view this suggestion is giving. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:35, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  10. Keep - Earns a keep from me!--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 15:19, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  11. Keep - I've never visited a fort, but I might visit this thing. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 16:55, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  12. Keep - I like it a lot. Maybe there could be some kind of counter to record how many people leap to their deaths from it as well. --Seventythree
  13. Keep - I like it.Tryce of Thunder 19:44, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  14. Keep - I can see it now... a flagbox for my wiki page for having visited all of the tourist traps in Malton (zoo, tower, forts, Caiger, stadiums, etc...) --Uncle Bill 19:46, 15 April 2007 (BST)
    Re - "I visited Caigar Mall and all I got was these lousy harmans". --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 23:18, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  15. Keep -Ooooh Pretty! Love it. I wouldn't mind a first aid station as well, further improving the functionality of the tower and the desiriblity of M.H. -Nibiletz 21:11, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  16. Keep - Sure, why not. --Storyteller 21:44, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  17. Keep -Too uncle bill: I will do that for myself just as soon as I finish voting. All aboard the keep train! --AlexanderRM 21:58, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  18. Change -Same as Karloth. -Black Mask 23:52, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  19. Keep - I would say that the LR shouldn't work because the bearings have been thrown off / the lenses smeared if ransacked. But I love this! --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 00:20, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  20. Keep - Yepyep. I love this one. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:10, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  21. The 50% chance of not seeing people seems kinda off to me, but not enough to kill. Besides Kevan will most likely fiddle with the numbers if he likes this idea anyway.--Pesatyel 05:32, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  22. Keep - I don't really like the ability to see any square in Malton, but its not overpowered, so it still gets a keep. --Gm0n3y 19:24, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  23. Keep - Seeing as it is going to be so big, why not have the top separate from the rest of the building (eg you enter the building, then spend another AP "climbing the stairs" to the top of the building to use the binoculars)? We could even have flooooors, but that might be going too far... --saxsuxMalTel 10:22, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Radio Hope

Timestamp: Fuster 22:21, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Type: Game content
Scope: Radio traffic
Description: Game announcements as periodic radio broadcasts from outside the quarantined city to gradually inject backstory and tie black helicopter visits in to the game as a whole.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - I like this a lot. It helps establish the setting in a non-obtrusive manner. - Black Mask 23:55, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Author Keep - Hopefully the 're' below helps explain the brief description if it's not immediately clear. - Fuster 00:45, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Keep-This I like. Adds some great flavour. Posssibly there could be more than one outside radio signal? Maybe one could give messages of hope, whilst the other could be a seceret freq. used by whoever controlls and directs the black helicopters, giving players info on the locations of drops. Seventythree
  4. Keep - Plot is good.--Bluish wolf 02:13, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  5. 'Keep I like it. There's a world outside. - BzAli 23:30, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Incomplete. A good idea, though; if it covered the details - outside of the core idea - I would certainly vote keep. --Saluton 23:55, 15 April 2007 (BST)
  2. Kill - While a great idea in theory (realistic, flavorful, etc) this is basically asking Kevan to write flavor text that only people who carry radios would have access to. And who has radios? Mostly people who already enjoy the game and don't need more flavor text to suck them in, which makes it a bit of a waste of time, especially as the same backstory could be conveyed other ways (eg, leaflet bombing, news updates of "rumors", etc). --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:12, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    Re. Not suggesting that these be frequent but rather occasional outside broadcasts on a set frequency (set by Kevan and for survivors to discover) prior to black chopper visits (providing drop co-ordinates); and also occasional public information announcements. This is similar to the existing game news announcements (on which Kevan already puts a flavour gloss) but might be a better way of bringing new content into the game. Most players operate from safehouses and most safehouses have radios. It's also pretty easy to find a radio through searches. However, if you were still worried about new content being missed (and particularly by newbies), this could be avoided by running the 'Radio Hope' announcements a week ahead of the news updates on the sign-in page. - Fuster 00:43, 16 April 2007 (BST)
  3. Kill/Change - with computer games, I like the game to be the story, rather than to read a story whilst I'm playing the game, if you see what I mean. The Fall of Caigar Mall. The Battle of Blackmore. Perhaps if military broadcasts had some in-game function, I'd vote Keep. Like maybe an encoded message that, if deciphered, tells of the next location of a crate drop - that would be cool. Also, you should specify that those transmission would be bold, or colour-coded. Something to distinguish them from all the spam-chatter that goes on. I regularly ignore radio broadcasts now because most of them are "fo shizzle" or "the mall has fallen", when it actually hasn't. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:10, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    Hey Funt. What you suggest re crate drops is exactly the kind of thing I'm suggesting. I'm not convinced about distinguishing it from chatter though. Part of the point is that it's a little obscure until established so that these transmissions are discovered in game rather than announced. - Fuster 10:33, 16 April 2007 (BST)
    Well, I'm voting on what your suggestion says, rather than on your secret thoughts. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:44, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Generator Shutoff

Was found to be a Dupe of this suggestion in peer rejected and received 1 keep, 3 kill and 3 dupe votes -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:10, 17 April 2007 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/15th-Apr-2007&oldid=1878978"